Counter-Currents Interview

I did an interview with Counter-Currents’ Greg Johnson and Mike Polignano—more of a discussion really. It touches on some important topics related to psychology, the nature of the West, and what kinds of people we want as White advocates.

67 Comments to "Counter-Currents Interview"

@blue rose: “I am extrapolating that you are a Messianic Jew”? Of or characterized by messianism: messianic nationalism. Led by Mes·si·ah, the anticipated deliverer and king of the Jews. A leader who is regarded as or professes to be a savior or liberator.

• None of the above, since the casteless Jews, marginalised lot in the 18th century Europe, were obliged to wear yellow bonnet and star-of-david arm-band (unlike the highly revered Rothschilds) as a warning sign “for the community sake”! Until Napoleon’s campaign in 1797, when Rome, Venice, Verona and Padua ghettos were abolished and liberated Jews were allowed to live wherever they wanted and practice any religion in open.

What was followed a couple of years later by the siege of Acre in 1799 (north-western Israeli Acco) as Napoleon prepared to unveil his astounding proclamation, first ever to declare the homeland in Palestine for the destitute Jews. If not for the connived evildoers foul-play consequences, hell-bent to retain the collateral human shield of the Jew lesser brethren. As a result Acre siege was lost to Brits at the time, along with the casteless Jews emancipation prospect.

So once it became obvious that Napoleon couldn’t establish national home in Palestine for the persecuted Jews, France was declared as their homeland. Where granted full citizenship Jews got involved in business and in political life to the disgust of the Jew peers of the realm. Metternich-Winneburg, Austrian consul in Paris in a letter to Austria’s foreign minister Count Standion lamented in Sept 1806: “Jews look upon Napoleon as their Messiah“!

Clearly, Napoleon Bonaparte was the only govt leader who gave Jews equality while the other nations born-to-rule Jew tyrants kept them in bondage. He abolished special taxes on Jews in Germany and gave them for the very first time civic and political equality. When strong opposition in France manifested itself, Napoleon stood firm in his support of Jewish equality, thus ending up to pay an ultimate price!

These four exiles are said to correspond to four animals: the camel, the rabbit, the hare, and the pig.

So. Just as an aside, it is clear there is a Christian correspondence to the Jewish four exiles. Meaning the Four Symbols of the Evangelists —

Matthew – winged human or angel
Mark – Lion
Luke – Ox
John – Eagle

So let’s put our cards on the table. From your interesting code talk, I am extrapolating that you are a Messianic Jew? Just asking, mind you, because if you are a representative of British Israelism, to me anyway this would be important to know exactly who you represent.

@blue rose: Unless a Jew was jolted by the first-hand experience on the receiving end, there is actually no panacea for the brainwashed category, at long last to come out of their shell. Hence no rational deliberation eventuated as yet, concerning wretched existence under neurotic tribe’s hegemony. Where since the beginning “us versus them” mentality was sewn!

Obviously, bewitched hearts swelled with pride: “Our land is the homeland”, gullible Jews thought. Whereas all other places simply were a foreign land. “We are the chosen people”, zionist demagogues insisted. The only ones worthy of our nation’s concern; if bombs fall on Iraq, Afghanistan, Beirut or Gaza, where human rights are violated but it makes our lives better, it’s of little concern to us!

Due to the innate affinity felt by the Jews who belong to the same spiecies of the originally inherited rhesus-free blood. Indicative of the authentic source, Jewish people innate connection, inherited naturally at birth.

I myself am not a nationalist Jew who think the world would be better-off without the fanatical zionism. Same applies to the neurotic militarism and the obsessive devout devotions, because religion is opium to the conditioned masses. Fanatical nationalism and indoctrinated religions have been more detrimental to the humanity on the whole, than any other force imaginable.

Where casteless Jews were scapegoated always as a collateral human shield, to deflect focus from the actual evildoers committed crimes against humanity. Taboo for discussion in galut, how else fanatical zionists to enforce the blind-leading-blind dill-flock’s adherence in commandeered kehilot.

Where bigoted to think that it’s of greater ethical importance to condemn the prejudices against one’s own people than that against the all others, demeaned usually as Goyim. Who were precluded in their own countries from asking imperative questions in the zionist era of universal deceit. Whilst not a day passing by, without the tribe appointed leader, newspaper editor, or radio pundit to ask: “Is it good for the Jews”?

Is it safe to say you are one of those who believe in British Israel? And from another post you are pushing “Jew peers of the realm” and seem to be saying Christianity is a joke (“…Christianity in Russia has been synonymous with a specific word for the peasantry in Russian language.”)

In your reply you say some author named Tina Brown ‘claims’ and ‘suggests’ things. To me this is pure speculation, and these days it seems anyone can ‘connect dots’ in any way whatsoever and get people to believe them.

I DON’T BELIEVE THE JEWS ARE THE CHOSEN RACE. That title has been handed over to the CHRISTIANS via Jesus Christ.

I followed Princess Diana’s life here and there while she was alive, and like probably more than half the world, I loved her and grieved for days after she died (or more than likely murdered. After all there was not ONE RED-BLOODED ENGLISHMAN — and she had what she thought was three serious relationships with fine looking White Englishmen, until each in turn betrayed her).

Yes, she said she felt like a breeder for the Royal Family (and what scum Prince Charles is), but I never heard anything about any GOLDSMITH connection during the whole time she was alive.

What you seem to be presenting is yet another lifting-up of the Jews as the Master Race — via your British Israelism.

• Diana’s mother Frances Shand Kydd was Jewish. She was born Frances Ruth Burke Roche, a Rothschild. Diana’s Father was Jewish, in Tina Brown’s book ‘The Diana Chronicles’, the author claims that Princess Diana’s mother Frances Shand Kydd had a long-running affair with Sir James Goldsmith during her marriage to Earl Spencer. She suggests that Diana who was born in 1961, was Goldsmith’s love child and not Spencer’s daughter (beside the point because Earl Spencer was born Jewish).

Manifestly, Diana shared a striking physical resemblance to the children of Sir James Goldsmith – Zak Goldsmith, Ben Goldsmith and Jemima Goldsmith (Diana’s very best friend and confidante). The Women’s weekly magazine New Idea Australia, created a furore in Britain when it published a story about Jemima and Diana being sisters. The magazine quoted an unnamed source who claims to have known the “sister secret” for 40 years.

Rumours of the true sister relationship are rife among the British aristocracy (the almighty chosen to reign within the rule by the best). News reports that both Diana and Jemima were fathered by swashbuckling tycoon Sir James Goldsmith ignited bushfires all over Australia and Britain.

Moreover, the facts show that during Diana’s unhappy marriage to Charles the brute, she did not seek solace in — nor was she offered solace by the Spencers. She sought solace from her surrogate family — the Goldsmiths.

Jemima Goldsmith converted to Islam when she married retired Pakistani cricketer Imam Khan in 1995. Jemima is said to be the one who inspired Diana to pursue liaison with a Muslim man, born Jewish.

@John Wood: “Christianity is at its foundation a Jewish cult. The central theme of the religion revolves around the worship of the alleged supernatural powers of an individual Jewish man whom arguably was a real and living historical person, and who apparently actually did all these supernatural acts”!

• John, like yourself, I always tested everything and adhered to that which is true. Such as the fact that the Christianity in Russia has been synonymous with a specific word for the peasantry in Russian language.

Maybe it’s just me, who cares to pay attention while asking imperative questions, such as who were chosen people? Certainly not the casteless Jews, such as myself, yet the almighty chosen Jew peers of the realm. Emanated from the cradle of the monarchical rule, dating back from the biblical times in Ethiopia.

Ever since the royals procreated in accordance with the hereditary primogeniture, though at times via chosen concubine. So it’s perfectly clear how the Jewish princes Diana really felt to say that she was nothing but a breeder for the Windsors.

What a divine dynasty in its glorious glitter, despite the fact that a cousin of Alexandra and Nicholas, King George V refused to allow them to evacuate to the UK as allegedly he was alarmed by their unpopularity in his country (no matter to their fatal repercussions).

Nevermind that the princess Alexandra was born as a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and although named Alix (a German version of her mother’s name, Alice), she assumed the name Alexandra Fyodorovna upon blessing into Russian Orthodox Church!

“At the basis of the successful campaign to genocide whites is the self-hatred that has become part of our ‘Christian’ heritage. White people now see denouncing white people as a form of charity, and real, gut hatred of our very existence is seen as a selfless moral act of the highest nature.””

Right on!! This is sooo true. Denouncing Whites is almost like the old fashined lenten and advent fasts for Christians. Self sacrifice. Go without so you can contribute to the Church charity or building fund or whatever.

The nuns used to tell us the story of the Christmas food baskets. Every one was supposed to bring canned or boxed food for Christmas baskets for poor people.

One of the children in the class brought the most canned food. He or she worked doing yard work or whatever so they could buy canned goods for the poor psople’s Christmas basket.

Turned out that the child who brought in the most food belonged to a family that was on the list to get a poor basket.

Never think of yourself, always think of others. Give your winter coat away and freeze. Then the recording angel will post it on the credit side of your admission to heaven account.

Christianity if full of that kind of thing. The worst about Israel are the bible Protestants. They hardly acknowledge the NT. They are obsessed with the OT. If they only knew what the Israelis think of them.

I know a man who just worships Israel. He wears a big Christian cross with a star of david under it. I told him what Jews think of bible loving Protestants like him.

His reply? That may be, but I love them no matter what.

Christianity was one of the things that created western civilization. But it has moved on to the entire third world.
It was only the spread of Islam that confined Christianity to Europe. Catholic is greek for universal.

Hatred of Whites and destruction of Whites seems part of Christianity, especially protestant Christianity. Look at all those Lutheran and other protestant groups bringing primitive criminal africans to small town America and dumping them on the welfare system.

Isn’t an essential part of the guilt trip that the Indians, being spiritually superior beings to whites did not think in terms of who owned the land and in fact, did not own the land. They were largely nomadic and did not own or develop the land. That this is depicted as morally superior is part of the current propoganda, despite the fact that ownership is mighty important in the current regime.
Ownership is only bad if white people practice it. Slavery is only bad if white people practice it. Mention is never made of that fact that both Africans and Indians practiced slavery.
What it boild down to is- white people bad, everybody else good.

@Mickey Meadows:
The “legal” term for this concept is terra nullius (land of nobody), meaning a territory that has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state (or has been relinquished by a state).
This term has been used in Australia right from the beginning of European settlement up to the present time. Since the Australian Aboriginals had no “states” the land was therefore “no man’s land”.
The same argument was used by the Zionists in Palestine: since there was no Palestinian state before 1948, the Jews felt entitled to take the land.

It is of course clear that this idea cannot be used for any European country by would-be Third World immigrants. Therefore race-replacement enthousiasts have recourse to another argument: all countries have been settled during their long history by immigrants, which is of course true. There are “only” some crucial differences between the immigrations of old history and the modern ones: 1) Those immigrations happened many centuries if not millennia ago, 2) The peoples of those immigrations were racially and often ethnically closely akin, 3) They have since long merged and formed stable ethnic identities. It is of course clear that modern non-White immigrations differ dramatically from that. These crucial differences cannot be denied. Still some try.
Perhaps you remember a pathetic attempt on this forum by a British woman on the occasion of the London riots to deny these racial differences by stating that the Celts were originally a colored people! Then there is the idea by another crazy Briton that the British people consists of “mongrels” anyway since they are a mixture of Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings etc….
If nothing else works you can of course always accuse your opponent of “racism”.

I think that “no one owns the land” has probably been used since before recorded history, as the rationalization of the invading/settling people. We used it against the indians when we settled the Americas. The English used it against the Irish when they wanted to settled Ireland. We used it agains the Aboriginals and still do. I watched an old film called Crocodile Dundee the other day – it was actually quite fun. But in the white guy gets a little Aussie speech, which was obviously a loaded statement with something to do with white/aboriginal relations “nah..you see…no one owns the land, that’s like saying the flea owns the elephant” (or whatever he said).
The point is….it’s just bog standard human nature. We are being dispossessed, as we all know. And the rationalizations and guilt trips and all the rest are just a more sophisticated variety on a very old tune.

It just occured to me that three or four generations is the same for the Palestinians. We’ve all been in a state of coercion and psychological destruction for 3 or 4 generations now. Amazing how degraded it can leave a people.

@Pierre de Craon: Even now, with this open theft of the minds and bodies of youngsters having gone on for three or four generations, I have the distinct sense that most local parents simply don’t get it.

There used to be a saying , “you can’t cheat an honest man”. It appears you can. The sheer gullibility of whites is astounding. I used to think it was moral cowardice and perhaps it is, but now I wonder if self-delusion plays a role. A parent just cannot admit to himself he is failing his children in the most crucial aspects of his development (mind and soul). They need to believe that the angry, anti-white ex-druggie teaching their child, while experimenting with lesbian relationships on the side, is really Miss Landers from Leave it to Beaver.

Nature or Nature’s God doesn’t seem to look too kindly on that kind of evasion.

@Jason Speaks: To my sorrow, I have had to read quite a bit of “professionally oriented” garbage like this in the decades I’ve spent in academic publishing. The distinct impression I have gotten is that British educational functionaries are far, far franker in avowing themselves the “anti-parents” in the lives of children. The fact that public schools here in the New York City area are staffed almost entirely by Jews, chip-on-shoulder minorities, and homosexuals should have left no one in the dark that they think of themselves as being the cure to the disease called parental authority and influence—but astonishingly enough, it has. Even now, with this open theft of the minds and bodies of youngsters having gone on for three or four generations, I have the distinct sense that most local parents simply don’t get it. (With the bulk of them being lowlife immigrant parents, why should there be any surprise about that?) Yet pains are taken to maintain the fiction, at least in some of the professional literature published here in the States. In the book I quoted from, on the other hand, no one balks at making it plain who runs the show.

No wonder white Brits didn’t complain when Blair’s crowd repealed prohibitions against double jeopardy. If I had already written off my children, matters of jurisprudence might not matter much to me either.

@Pierre de Craon: Fascinating, thank you very much, that is truly revealing. I’m going to need to reread it. This line you wrote immediately stuck out:

… no foreign arrival, however recent, is ever to be construed as being less British than descendants of people who can trace their lineage back to Roman or Celtic Britain. Expression by students of any contrary awareness is to be immediately stigmatized

This raises so many issues. First, are parents truly so unconcerned that their children (or their honest expressions) will be stigmatized? We hear so much about how schools push self-esteem (in the superficial sense) but honestly, schools have become psychologically oppressive and I would say abusive. I would point out to “White Nationalists” that this why we face so much resistance: Any pro-White statement is stigmatized as repellant from the time students are little children. I am sure this includes such things as social exclusion, humiliation and public punishment. These are powerful weapons to use against an eight year old child. By the time these students reach 18, it will take a miracle to reach them.

@Mickey Meadows: This is the point where the ‘no one owns the land’ will start to come in.

That’s an interesting line because we hear that over here too. That seems to be a common line of attack. Perhaps we can point out that everything is owned by someone (especially in settled countries). Maybe we can point out to Whites that if they don’t feel like they own the land, that means someone else is controlling it.

We might also point out that there are plenty of countries on earth in which the inhabitants most definitely feel that they own the land.

@Jason Speaks: Though you didn’t ask me the question, may I too give you an answer, one somewhat different in content and emphasis from that of Mickey Meadows?

Here follow two excerpts from a book to be published this year by a leading British scholarly publisher. It is targeted at pre-college UK teachers, and its subject is how teaching and learning and the curriculum interrelate. Please note that I cannot give you the actual title or the two authors’ or the publisher’s names. I got the copyedited prepub files for the book from a friend associated with its development, and were he or she ever associated with the revelation of anything from the book on such an evil and “hate-filled” site as this, blacklisting might be the least of the consequences for him/her.

The first striking thing about the book is that it assumes that all UK education must be predicated on the assumption that no foreign arrival, however recent, is ever to be construed as being less British than descendants of people who can trace their lineage back to Roman or Celtic Britain. Expression by students of any contrary awareness is to be immediately stigmatized; indeed, in several places the authors emphasize the importance of learning as indoctrination. For that reason, critiques of education that depreciate the value of centralized curricula, in theory or in practice, are viewed with alarm:

In many ways linked to this issue of less prescription is the idea of free schools – those having freedom from local authority control and increased powers to change the curriculum, increase the focus on discipline, change teacher’s pay structure and extend school hours; these are, effectively, quite wide-ranging powers. The schools can theoretically be set up by parent groups, businesses and charitable bodies, among others. The challenge here is to link to the issue of reducing educational inequality based on social class. While free schools and the like could have the opportunity to reflect local needs far more effectively, it is crucial to keep a close and critical eye on the organizations setting up the schools and the aims they have. There have already been suggestions that the schools will guarantee places to children whose parents have been involved in their creation – a way, critics suggest, of reducing the protection that the current open-admissions policy provides. Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, stated, ‘It completely paves the way for pushy, middle-class parents to set up a school so their children don’t have to go to the same school as the great unwashed. It makes a mockery of the idea that free schools are for all. They are not for everybody – we know they are disproportionately in the less deprived communities, where these schools are not needed’ (Independent, 2011).

Another topic addressed at length concerns the importance of preventing “high” culture from outvaluing local, or popular, cultures—the point, of course, being that the high culture to be eschewed is white, Western, and largely Christian and, hence, is the enemy of every right-minded teacher:

“Hill and Cole (2001) argue for an adoption of critical pedagogy within the school curriculum. This approach, as outlined by Giroux (1983), would move the curriculum away from the functional towards the critical. It would provide an insight into, for example, many of the theoretical concepts contained within this chapter. Furthermore, it would provide a critique of the system, allowing individuals to see both how they are influenced by the dominant cultures and how to address this need. It would seek to debate the class system and lay it open to critiques and inquiry. To adopt a critical pedagogy in schools would require a range of changes to be made. Currently, according to Giroux (1983) and others such as Apple (2004), schools and society give higher status to certain types of behaviour and, more crucially, knowledge. The promotion of high culture over low culture, for example, and the fact that the languages (Bernstein 1971) used at school do not correspond to those used in all homes within society can be said to disadvantage certain groups. However, critical pedagogy needs to go further than simply raise awareness of these issues; instead, it should actively seek to overcome them. Schools should respond to local needs, as opposed to a nationally set and standardized curriculum. Teachers should be aware of the culture of the community they serve and seek to link education to its needs. The education of the community should involve the community and should refer to local issues. Finally, teachers should instil hope with the language of possibility – something which, after an examination of the GCSE figures, is not possible within the current system. This is not to place the blame at the feet of individual teachers; rather, it suggests that within the current system teachers have little flexibility to effect changes.”

Note that here and here alone is danger perceived in centralization—the bad sort of centralization, that is. The authors stress time and again the need to work to prevent Parliament and Whitehall from institutionalizing outmoded and evil concepts of acculturation.

There are, unsurprisingly, several chapters that emphasize and reemphasize the critical importance of Marxist and Foucauldian modes of thought to the exclusion of any competitors. I raise this point simply because so many people claim that that these modes are yesterday’s news, that we have all “moved beyond” them. This is a lie, of course. The exponents of both these views and these lies—most of them Jews, may I add—are the Educational Establishment. They mean to kill our culture, our civilization, and, if need be, our children.

“Further, while Hirst and like-minded theorists contend that their selection of subject domains and content is based on rational, logical and detached judgement, other have argued that – in reality – issues of power are always embroiled in what constitutes legitimate content. On one level, this is because what constitutes valid ‘truth’ within society’s knowledge system (and on which the curriculum is based) shifts over time. Michel Foucault (2001; 1979; 1969), for instance, has documented the ways in which the dominant episteme of society (the agency with the greatest claim to the truth) has shifted throughout history – from, for instance, religion to science – and the impacts that this has had on what constitutes truth more broadly in society.
Beyond this broader construction of knowledge, commentators have documented the ways in which the process of selection of content for inclusion in the curriculum challenges its claims to be objective and neutral. They argue that it inevitably develops a bias towards the interests and concerns of the social groups with the most power to influence it. In the language of Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1973; Bourdieu, 1986), the curriculum thus becomes colonized by the cultural capital of white middle-class men – emphasizing so-called high culture (theatre, conventional literature, etc) over popular forms, not because of its inherent importance to society but because it is preferred by those with greater social power and influence. In turn, this creates a bias in achievement; those learners who share this social background – and are thus more familiar with the cultural capital which is valued in the curriculum – are at an advantage (hence, the use of the term ‘capital’ is intentional, as culture has relative ‘value’ which can be ‘cashed in’ within the appropriate context).”

I apologize for taking up so much space. I do think, however, that this material is very revealing.

Jason – there’s several levels you can go through. The top level seems to be that Britain has a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants. If someone asks what this is based on, they might be told that Britain had seen wave after wave of immigration from the Romans to the Saxons to the Normans to the more recent waves.
If someone points out that, actually other ‘waves’ were actually invasions involving wars, the slightly more terse response is that, yes you are the descendnet of those invaders. This is the point where the ‘no one owns the land’ will start to come in. But if someone then points out that genetically the majority of indigenous folk are not that much changed from all the invasions, at this stage the subject is switched to colonialism as the reason for current immigration. If this is resisted the conversation ends with “you sound like a skinhead” :O)

I’ve wondered whether Prof MacDonald has not previously deliberated on psychotherapy type material in the political context because of Freud’s low standing in academic psychology and a consequent wish not to damage his professional reputation by pursuing this avenue. However, some of the material on narcissism for example can, I feel, be quite illuminating in analysing Jewish behaviour.

“Macdonald makes some legitimate criticism of a handful of Jewish intellectuals, but mostly he speaks to the situation in the USA. In the UK, there is a fairly well integrated Jewish community and there would be no political mileage in provoking them”.

Not quite, Lancashire Lad. It’s true that the Jewish community in Britain is lower profile and less in-your-face in terms of activism, fund raising and lobbying than the Jewish population in the US. However, one should not underestimate the role they have played and continue to play in policing any expressions of nationalist sentiment and in enforcing political correctness. The career of Lord Lester is one example. The way Tony Blair was cultivated earlier in his political career by moneyed Jewish interests – with the payback of his stance on Iraq – is another. Indeed British foreign policy is as much under neocon control (eg Fox/Werritty) as American foreign policy is. More recently, Gillian Walnes director of the UK Anne Frank Trust, revealed that she played a key role in getting the then Labour government to undertake an inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. As you know, charges of ‘institutional racism’ and much guilt-inducing propaganda directed at the indigenous population ensued from this.

I agree with regard to Frank Field: he is a sound guy – his heart is in the right place though he is restricted by wishing to remain within respectable company. And there is an irony that Lord Glasman, a Jew, speaks out on behalf of the traditional working class when most Labour MPs are too cowardly to do so.

“Actually psychopathology has become one of my interests. I’m actually writing an academic paper right now, an evolutionary perspective on various psychiatric diagnoses, particularly aggression and what they call conduct disorder in children.” –Prof. MacDonald in CC interview

I hope that Dr. MacDonald is well aware that I spent five years of my life researching this very subject (click on my penname to see my most recent article on the subject).

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

The editors publish things in RACE TRAITOR because they think that publishing them will help build a community of readers. Editorial opinions are expressed in editorials and unsigned replies to letters.

I have noticed with a lot of contributors to this general discussion of white issues and identity, that Christianity in general appears to be ‘off-limits’ for criticism. I often get the feeling that adherence to Christianity and its general tenets is part of some package-deal that comes together with White or Western European identity.

That is like complaining about Islam having pride of place at a forum dedicated to Arab nationalism or bemoaning a special place for Shintoism at a Japanese forum. Why is cultural self-hatred supposed to be the sole prerogative of White people?

Christianity is at its foundation a Jewish cult. The central theme of the religion revolves around the worship of the alleged supernatural powers of an individual Jewish man whom arguably was a real and living historical person, and who apparently actually did all these supernatural acts.

If you really believe in the supernatural acts of Christ, might the origin of His teaching is supernatural as well? If so, then the Christianity comes from the Creator and is not some emanation from a foreign tribe. The Jews rejected Jesus because they hoped for a Caesar or Alexander who would lead them to world conquest. The Greeks had already been there and done that. The greatest Greek philosophers had logically conceived the existence of a monotheistic God and had deduced that true religion would consist of making a connection to that God. However, the philosophers found no clear way of making that connection. When Christianity came along, the appetites whetted Greek philosophers were satisfied. The rustic Germans were just as eager to accept the new religion as sophisticated Greeks. The entire island of Ireland was conquered by St. Patrick in a single generation. Christianity fit the Europeans like a glove and has welded the continent into the greatest civilization ever before known.

The historical reality for us European people and our worship of this religion for the past 2000 years has been, well, mixed in its results.

What history are you talking about? The public school black legends of Jews who slander all of Christian history or Protestants who reject three quarters of it? Zionist Evangelicals can only accept the last 150 years of their own existence. You should consider the writings of pre-PC Catholic historians like William Thomas Walsh to get a balanced picture.

I’ve grown up with Christianity, but I don’t need it in order to be a culterally or racially fulfilled person.

Culture is the inherited patrimony of one’s people for passing along to the next generation. It is not really about individual fulfillment. All white Europeans inherit the Christian culture whether they admit it or not. Unfortunately, many whites have been fooled into rejecting their spiritual heritage, much to our shared detriment.

my real fear is, that Christianity is crippling our ability to deal with the ‘controlled by the tribe’ phenomenon that is afflicting our culture

Again, you need to study real history. Jewish intrigue has succeeded in disconnected Whites from our source of spiritual strength. Christianity warned us that Pharisaic Jews are true sons Satan, murderer and liar from the beginning. It was only after White leaders lost Faith that they were displaced by the Jews. The next generation of White leaders must learn from the mistakes of our recently deposed post-Christian White leaders.

I’m not sure I totally understand your comment, but I really like it anyway.

There are some great Christians in this movement. I found a blog called Cambria Will Not Yield. I don’t know who writes it; I know he is an honest Christian and he loves White people. His blog, which goes back to 2006, is so inspiring, and I feel very grateful to have found it recently. It’s a treasure. Someone else on a different blog expressed similar feelings, and that was how I discovered CWNY.

There is no way for a person to leave a message on his blog or contact him, but if he is reading this — thank you, thank you, thank you.

“Was this “collective punishment” unjust? It might seem so. But, just as all mankind and nature itself is under the “curse” because of Adam and Eve’s sin, so Ham’s descendants bear the consequences of their ancestor’s transgression. God never condemns innocent souls eternally for their parents’ sins. But we live in a cause-and-effect world, and we are often affected by our forefathers’ moral decisions, for good or for evil. The descendants of Ham today primarily consist of blacks.”

Ted Pike has gone out of his way to attack David Duke, not once but several times, this despite Dr Duke expressing the most Christian charity towards Mr Pike. Pike has done good but his attacking Dr Duke to curry favor with the Deicide Deniers is not a tactic that will bring him what he seeks.

@John Wood: Of course the conclusion was mapped out from the start. Saint Basil was a Christian bishop, one who lived in a time of great religious turmoil (Arians, Nestorians, pagan revivals). He was educated in Athens with the future emperor Julian (as well as St. Gregory).

Nevertheless, Basil, like most Byzantines (then and after, stretching through John Philoponus in the 6th c., to Constantine VII in the 10th c., to Michael Psellus in the 11th c., to Bessarion in the 15th c.–just a few examples) understood who they were and what they had inherited. They certainly, while believing themselves to be the New Israel, did not believe themselves to be Jews.

They understood their ethnicity, and they understood the achievements (intellectual, artistic, and political) of their ancestors. By reading the Church Fathers, this becomes clear. THAT is why I posed the link.

The black legend that the early Christians were all philistine fanatics is Jew-inspired to the core. By promoting it, one is doing their work for them. Christianity may or may not be the unifying force around which whites rally going forward. I’m sure my own hopes are transparent. But one thing is for sure, it is by far the most significant living cultural repository that we have–I’m talking the Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran churches, as well as what remains of primitive fundamentalist (non-dispensationalist) Christians (in their own way they retain core Anglo-Saxon values)–so one should think twice before one speaks of killing it.

@Mickey Meadows: You may have answered this elsewhere, so sorry if it is a repeat, but I am curious about the attitudes on immigration in England. Here in US, they taught us, starting in Kindergarten, that no one “owns” this country and if anything, Whites stole it from its rightful owners. Therefore, most Whites feel immediately castrated when trying to defend themselves in the US (how dare we keep anyone else out!).

But how is this done in England? It IS your land, your homeland, without doubt. It has been for eons. What is the general line of attack used to incapacitate the people from asserting their rights to ownership of their own homeland?

Well said John. Yeah…it’s incredible but true that a double history doesn’t help someone. Nor even as you say, being the lecturer teaching the double history.
But maybe in your situation now, that double history will prove at last useful.

Thanks for your support Gregor, I really appreciate it because digging up the truth can feel like a very lonely business sometimes.
Yep, it is true that I feel exactly like someone that has been struck with a bolt of lightning in the last few years. It’s sad but true, that for many years I was an aggressive defender of ‘them’. And, I guess like many other’s here, my family has donated it’s pound of flesh upon the alter of freedom during the 20th century. Now that I am fortunate enough to be living in a golden age; a brief window in time when information is still flowing freely on the Internet; I have seen enough evidence to make me feel completey duped.
The ‘matrix’ term is apt. I often think back to how blind I was for all those years. Please, let me embarass myself even more: I hold a degree with a double major in modern history and political science! Upon reflection, did I really learn anything in all those lectures? Nope! In hindsight they were nothing more than one long series of stage-managed fantasies where the duped preached to the duped! Talk about a revolution on the road to Damascus – yeh, I had one alright – I took the red the pill!

Thank you for the link Athanasius,
But without meaning to sound ungrateful: why did you bother? I paid you the courtesy of reading it carefully. It was long-winded, even verbose; but that can be a hallmark of ancient writing. Sorry to sound disparaging of such an eloquent Greek philosophy lecture, but the only response it brings to mind is an Anglo-Saxon one: ‘Shit on stilts’. That is what it is. Just an early example of ‘Christian Salesmanship’ Very nice. I don’t accept any of it. It was easy to see after the first paragraph that the whole thing was going to lead the reader by the nose through a long-winded feined weighing up of the evidence and arguments. When, in reality the conclusion was mapped out from the start: Christianity = intellectually superior people go for this – Everything else = dullards go here. Bollocks.

Dr. MacDonald, I note a front page article in the (national edition) NYT for
Jan. 25 in which reporter Benedict Carey deals with crosscurrents affecting the yet further delayed publication of the DSM V (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association). In the concluding portion of this report, he suggests clearly that NIMH has a project going to side-step the DSM approach and to base diagnoses upon the evolved biological characteristics of people. While some of us have misgivings about defining psychiatric disorders as merely biological/medical, what nudges my
curiosity is whether such an approach will necessarily illuminate questions of varied incidence of major disorders along lines of race and gender–as well as questions of varied thesholds of medication effectiveness. However, I no longer underestimate how such implications can be rendered to be the proverbial elephant in the tea room and thus be
relegated to pillow talk, if even that.

Dr. MacDonald, incidental to the work you are doing regarding psychiatric diagnoses, I wonder if you perceive any outcropping of racial / gender/ realism some of the controvery going on about the ever-postponed 5th editon of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. In the 25 Jan. NYT on the front page (extending to page 21), Benedict Carey (who seems to have the NYT assignment on this topic ) notes that the NIMH is
rather sidestepping DSM to try to find a deeper and clearer basis of diagnosis in biological features–and I’d assume, hence, in human evolution and in evolved , if often overlapping, group differences. If such a breakthrough method is promising, it ought to clarify such matters as differing incidences of disorder among the major races as well as differing average dosage thresholds for the most commonly used psychiatric medications. I am a little
puzzled by how breezily Carey seems to assume the evolved biological features are the sole key to the whole matter.

@matthew:
Lord Glasman may have woken up to the damage immigration post-1997 has done to Labour’s image amongst its traditional support and be seeking to do something about it. That is all to the good from my point of view. The leading Labour spokesman on the issue of limiting immigration in the UK is Frank Field MP.

Macdonald makes some legitimate criticism of a handful of Jewish intellectuals, but mostly he speaks to the situation in the USA. In the UK, there is a fairly well integrated Jewish community and there would be no political mileage in provoking them.

Rationality is overrated and Mr. MacDonald’s rationalism and commonsensism do not work. How does MacDonald actually define “unrealistic”? Is the A3P realistic? If MacDonald’s own project(s) are realistic and 100% rational, how come most people seem to be immune to his words of wisdom? The thing is, Mr. MacDonald’s concept or analysis of rationalism/realism/reality is old-fashioned and out of touch with the 21st century zeitgeist. Make no mistake: MacDonald has come up with valuable analyses of 20th century cultural pathologies, but these analyses are insufficient to make a difference in the real world.

It takes time. He is one voice among many.

how come most people seem to be immune to his words of wisdom?

Most people have never heard of Dr. MacDonald. Even the average pro-White person in middle America has probably never heard of him.

I think the unseen, indirect, long-term effects of his effort are probably huge and very good.

@KM
Kevin, Do you believe that White individualism is primarily caused by natural selection by the environment in the North over tens of thousands of years, or that it is a result of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, which favors intense group solidarity for itself and individualism for non-Jews. Perhaps the Jewish strategy was more successful among Whites because of their somewhat higher trust and individualism, but that once the Jewish Diaspora was established in the West, it became a source of “social” (versus natural) genetic selection, reducing the fitness of more ethnocentric Whites (by attacking them or devaluing them) and increasing the fitness of trusting, individualistic Whites. In other words, the Jewish Diaspora has been selectively breeding Whites for docility, lower IQ, and individualism, and lower ethnocentrism.

The most important question is what is our goal? Do we want to bask in the warm glow that we are the superior ones who had the wisdom to see the truth while everyone else was lost in darkness? Do we want to provide a venting space for all angry adolescents ( of all ages) who thrill in the ancient pleasures of saying naughty words, which is hard to do in our society, so they must resort to the nonsense we so often find here? Do we feel honor bound to defend Hitler, at all costs, as the last of the good white men? Do we want to have our own little clique that scorns all outsides? Do we want to use this opportunity to blame our current condition on our ancestral opponents? Brits vs Irish, Catholic vs Protestant, religious vs secular?
My goal is to examine, with honesty, how we arrived here, and then spread the word to our kin in words they can hear and understand, in the hopes of gaining allies. We can enjoy the undeniable pleasures of being the first in the know and heap scorn on all others, or we can recognize that what white people need now is leaders, people they can trust and respect to tell the truth, calmly, maturely, sometimes gently. Or we can allow nasty people to attack any innocent soul who wanders our way for not abiding by our version of correct thought, and thereby confirm that we are a bunch of bitter, angry, crazy losers.

Just as some here make the argument that Christianity is the root of all our problems, I could argue that it is the scientific method. We were killing each other off with our usual efficiency and were unhappy with the result so we decided to have a massive experiment. Let us do our best to test the hypothesis that all men are created equal. Now the experiment has produced disastrous consequences and we are at a loss. Shall we rid ourselves of the scientific method? Or should we appeal to the scientists among us to look at the test results?

We have become so atomized that we barely speak the same language. Before we condemn others as idiots and fools, perhaps we should try to understand what they are really saying.

Despite the fact that the header on this site mentions culture, many seem to be stuck on DNA. Personally, I do not want to be reduced merely to my DNA. As much as I love my husband’s blue eyes and blond hair, it is his ability to provide an environment in which I want to live and rear my children,that I do not want lost to future generations.

So, what do we want? Persuade more white folks to see we are headed down the wrong path and we must make corrections if our people, culture and the best way of life ever devised can survive? Or do we want to be right – dead right?

Rationality is overrated and Mr. MacDonald’s rationalism and commonsensism do not work. How does MacDonald actually define “unrealistic”? Is the A3P realistic? If MacDonald’s own project(s) are realistic and 100% rational, how come most people seem to be immune to his words of wisdom? The thing is, Mr. MacDonald’s concept or analysis of rationalism/realism/reality is old-fashioned and out of touch with the 21st century zeitgeist. Make no mistake: MacDonald has come up with valuable analyses of 20th century cultural pathologies, but these analyses are insufficient to make a difference in the real world.

I don’t feel I’m up to a contribution at the intellectual level to this complex and critical matter of mental health and wellbeing in the ranks. But narrow personal testimony also has its place in the mix.
I think that in many ways the ‘fine line’ KM speaks of should be centred at the heart of this debate. This is because we’re not a psychological society we’re a group of people desperately seeking to save our people from what we envisage to effectively be a genocide.
The fine line is that on the one hand, if you are going to give your life to making a concerted long term contribution, largely in isolation, almost certainly without any sustenance of praise or encouragement or people to bounce ideas with, where any rational appraisal of your own skills and qualities compared to the scale of what needs to be done would surely point to a complete non-starter (the scale of the problem is bigger enough for pretty much anyone of any ability to conclude that): you gotta be a bit crazy.
But on the other hand, while most forms of crazy are basically benign, they are not productive. Nothing gets produced. Insanely unrealistic goals and self-convinced abilities are at risk of never getting off the ground in the first place. Having an unrealistic set of goals is a recipe for just getting old sipping coffee daydreaming out the window.

But on the other hand, you need a set of unrealistic goals because the situation is totally unrealistic. I have a set of totally unrealistic goals. I am also definitely on the mania spectrum. Undiagnosed.
The way I am approaching the problem of squaring this circle is by trying to balance the insanely unrealistic goals with intensely sane best-practice oriented down-to-earth focus on personal motivation and organization.
The source I have found helpful for this is actually Anthony Robbins. I strongly recommend his audio coaching. It’s all about motivating yourself, keeping yourself optimistic/joyful (which let’s face it is a major challenge for us), being motivated, but most critically…goal setting and performance and progress monitoring.
Yes, I have totally unrealistic big goals, but the way I see it, just so long as I am setting expectations goals and deadlines, and just so long as I am sane enough to recognize when something isn’t working and correspondingly narrow or change the focus, then it’s ok to have insanely unrealistic l ong term plans. It’ll work out. Something productive will come out of it. It might not be single handedly saving my race from genocide, but that’s ok. Just as long as I end up single handedly making things better and not worse, then I think that on my death bed I’ll be able to look at the ceiling and think “I didn’t do so bad”.
So then there’s the other category, like Breivik, whose crazy lack of realism can result in their doing counter productive things. This is of course a problem, even if the counter productive thing in question doesn’t involve violence and criminality. I mean, some attitudes of some commenters on some message boards are counter productive.
I don’t know what to do about that, other than to say that right now the really difficult thing about our situation is that acts of violence and martrydom just aren’t going to help at all. If it was that easy, it wouldn’t even be a problem. There would be plenty of rational dedicated people who would be willing to make the sacrifice.
But the rational dedicated people understand that our challenge is multidimensional and complex. Our movement needs to become a social and economic player. We need to own stuff. We need to be a force to be reckoned with in the big boys games…money, power, politics. We need to own all the negative things that are used against our people, most centrally White Guilt.

Just to clarify the point for those who might not “get it” (including, perhaps, Professor MacDonald):

“He who loves father or mother more than [insert politically correct/cultural Marxist dogma] is not worthy of [insert politically correct/cultural Marxist dogma]; and he who loves son or daughter more than [insert politically correct/cultural Marxist dogma] is not worthy of [insert politically correct/cultural Marxist dogma].”

Or, to quote Bob Whitaker:

“At the basis of the successful campaign to genocide whites is the self-hatred that has become part of our ‘Christian’ heritage. White people now see denouncing white people as a form of charity, and real, gut hatred of our very existence is seen as a selfless moral act of the highest nature.”

My only quibble with Whitaker (and admittedly, it’s a big one) is that it has ALWAYS been part of “our” Christian heritage, as the quote from Matthew demonstrates.

@ John Wood:

“Remember: we have been white people a whole lot longer than we have been Christians, and we were doing just fine before that religion came along.”

Watch out, John! One day, like me, you might actually begin to FEEL the ancient, proud Aryan (or “Indo-European,” if you prefer polite euphemisms) blood flowing in your veins; and then you might actually begin to understand Nietzsche, if you’ve read him; and then — oh, dear! You might begin to look around you and see people with white skins, but with dirty dishwater in their veins, like I do. And worst of all, you might no longer “wonder” how we came to this pass!

Well, now may be as good a time as any other to raise an issue that I think needs to be raised and discussed in a rational and objective manner. The subject is: Christianity. I have noticed with a lot of contributors to this general discussion of white issues and identity, that Christianity in general appears to be ‘off-limits’ for criticism. I often get the feeling that adherence to Christianity and its general tenets is part of some package-deal that comes together with White or Western European identity. I want to say something contravertial, but which I think needs to be said. However, before I do, I want to preface my contraversy with some of my personal historical credentials. I am a white man who was raised in a very devout christian home. If my mother ever heard me criticise christianity in any way she would go berserk; my father perhaps worse. I even spent several years training as a christian minister when I was a young man. I know about this religion, I approach it with respect for its followers, as I do with all people and their personal religious convictions. But, that said, this is what I want to say:
Christianity is at its foundation a Jewish cult. The central theme of the religion revolves around the worship of the alleged supernatural powers of an individual Jewish man whom arguably was a real and living historical person, and who apparently actually did all these supernatural acts. I feel as though I can hear people building up a pire of wood around my feet!. The historical reality for us European people and our worship of this religion for the past 2000 years has been, well, mixed in its results. I lot of great things have been done in the name of Christianity, but an equal lot of bad has also been done. I want say that for me, with all due respect to Christianity and its followers, my identity as a white man; someone of european ancestry, IS IN NO WAY DEPENDANT ON CHRISTIANITY. I’ve grown up with Christianity, but I don’t need it in order to be a culterally or racially fulfilled person.
Now, given what I have been learning about ‘the tribe’ over the past few years, and much of it as a new and surprising revalation to me, I am deeply concerned about the close affinity and insistence of many of my white brothers and sisters upon the sacrosanct place that Christianity is holding in our culture. Remember: we have been white people a whole lot longer than we have been Christians, and we were doing just fine before that religion came along. I would ask readers here to think about my proposition and debate the issues here, but in a rational and calm and respectful manner. Because my real fear is, that Christianity is crippling our ability to deal with the ‘controlled by the tribe’ phenomenon that is afflicting our culture – frankly I think that it allows them to play us like damn fiddle. Think it over please. Calm the emotions first, and then think; those who feel a need to launch a vicious defence of Christianity…Please.

Greg: It’s odd, though, that the very same people who are like that will turn really vehemently and viciously upon the people who are closest to them if they don’t go along with their kind of indiscriminate love for the other. I have friends in our larger cause who have been basically disowned by their families because they don’t subscribe to this bizarre xenophilia, as Faye puts it. And people who subscribe to that attitude are willing to attack and sever their connections with their own children. There’s something really strange about that. Can you explain that?

KMac: There is. Frankly I don’t really understand that one. But I do agree that [people like that] exist. I’ve seen them myself. In some ways looking at The Authoritarian Personality, that’s the kind of person that they idealize: the sincere liberal who would reject his own family in pursuit of these ideals. There are such people. I can’t say that I have a good analysis of that phenomenon, though.

I was immediately reminded of this:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

And Kevin MacDonald doesn’t understand this? Obviously it’s not a NEW phenomenon. Perhaps he’s being persecuted by “demons,” like Ted Pike.

Very interesting interview. Yes, there are probably a larger than normal number of combative personalities in White Advocacy at the moment. I suspect it’s because a certain percentage aren’t really pro-White in the serious sense anyway. Some enjoy taking controversial stands for the thrill of it. Some may be a bit anti-social and drawn to it as a way of bashing the larger “system”. A few seem to relish the thought of “getting in someone’s face” and yelling at them. A smaller number do seem very low trust. I don’t think they are really pro-White. If this becomes mainstream, they will vanish.

We shouldn’t make too big a deal out of it, but I do think they drive away a number of Whites who would otherwise be open to White issues.

That was an interesting and informative interview with Keven MacDonald, and I am glad he is a Professor of Psychology. He is able to think in terms of balance. Often, with some white nationalists, they are simply too skewed in one direction that leave no room for and shut off any actual real understanding of the greater picture.

I didn’t know there was a flip side to xenopobia, which is xenophilia, love of the foreign, which explains multiculturalists, and its corollary, the ethnic self-hatred or “ethnomasochism” that explains the diversity of the diversity cult. If someone should accuse me of xenopobia, at least now I can counter with calling them a xenophiliac, and leave them to look it up in a dictionary.

Dear Dr. MacDonald,
Having just now finished reading your interview with Greg Johnson, I wanted to write and say that I found the discussion very informative and refreshing. You can’t beat honesty and integrity can you? That was a good and timely reminder to me, and I suspect to many of the regular visitors to TOO. The ideas discussed caused me to reflect on my own thoughts and attitudes and modus. When a person reflects on whom they are and what they think, and in a frank manner, it quickly becomes apparent: I have nothing to hide, because I have nothing of which to be ashamed. Since when has conducting one’s affairs in accordance with heartfelt beliefs grounded in rational consideration ever been something to cringe and hide from? Moreover, taking a firm and clear position on issues of racial and cultural realities which accords with the best available evidence does not require an aggressive disposition either! A calm but clear and firm stance is the the most rational and effective. And, importantly, as you point out, it is this clear and rational integrity and calm civility alone which invites the majority of interested observers to form the conclusion that people who share many of the sentiments regularly expressed at TOO are not crazed time-bombs waiting to explode. We are the ladies and gentlemen that pass you in the street, clean your windows or fix your teeth! It is entirely normal to feel a sense of growing concern and discontent at the state of affairs in the Occident.

A timely example. With his absolute loyalty to Israel, Newt Gingrich has earned a Fox news psychologist to assure us the there is no reason to distrust Newt. His three marriage attest to what a good president he will make.